[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

# Re: MOO into C

- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 08:47:09 PDT
- From:
- cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
- Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
- In-Reply-To: <18141.9607241510@dufftown.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk>

    On Wed, 24 Jul 1996 dg@dcs.st-and.ac.uk wrote:
    > >I'm ambivalent here, I can live without them.  But this reminded me of
    > >something else, something I'd really like to see the server correct.  The
    > >following:
    > >
    > >foo = {@foo, bar}
    > [...]
    > >The only downside is that optimized code wouldn't decompile back into MOO
    > >source code.  This could be worked around by giving programmers some
    > >facility to save the un-optimized bytecodes (perhaps as a binary string?)
    > >before optimizing.
    >
    > It never is decompiled. The verb source is stored seperately from the
    > byte-compiled version, in text form. Try disassembling some byte-compiled code
    > one day and try decompiling it... it's just not possible (easily).

    Its been years since I've seen the MOO source code, but I was under the
    impression it decompiled the byte code.  I know for certain the Cold DOES
    decompile its byte code, and it does NOT store anything BUT the byte
    code.  Pull up the code distribution and look at decode.c if you still
    think it is not possible.

    (As for speed concerns, Cold still benchmarks 10-30 times faster than MOO).

    -Brandon

References:

- Re: MOO into C

- From: dg@dcs.st-and.ac.uk

- Prev: Re: MOO into C
- Next: Re: MOO into C
- Index: MOO-cows
- Thread: MOO-cows

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index